The real concerns...

**liz** · 13 May 2007, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by TheMase

Total of 39 tackles. 16 of which were delivered by 4 players.

The other 18 players delivered a total of 23 tackles.
I think it is pretty obvious why we lost.

I thought it was about as poor an effort tackling wise as I can remember seeing from the Swans. Completely with you.

The other major disappointment - and again uncharacteristic one - was that none of them looked interested in touching the ball at centre bounces. They just stood around and watched their opponents pick the ball up and run off with it. I know their attempts at clearances are often a bit scratchy and it sometimes takes several mauls and re-bounces before the ball breaks out, but at least piling bodies on the pill has got to be better than standing watching.

***SimonH*** · 13 May 2007, 11:48 PM

Without commenting on the particular game ('cos I didn't see it), the team that's second to the footy (or losing the clearances) will often lay more tackles. For example, Richmond 'beat' Geelong in tackles (68-64) in their record shellacking last w/e; Sydney won the tackle count 69-53 in the 2006 GF. Chris Judd and Adam Goodes in their most stellar form don't lay too many tackles...

The real problem, which I guess might have cursed us this weekend, is where you fall behind in the tackle count because you're not winning the clearances, but also not laying a glove on the bloke who does.

The tackle count suggests that Saturday's game was easy and free-flowing (seemingly in a bad way). 94 tackles for the game, against 158 for the Port/Richmond game. Sydney are the 'stoppage kings', hey?

**Doctor J.** · 14 May 2007, 08:22 AM

The stat I'd like to see collected is the missed tackles.

Saturday night on so many occasions it appeared that St. Kilda players would be able to break tackles or even worse, brush past them. We just couldn't lay a tackle when we needed to, and hence St Kilda were able to clear the ball from the stoppages a lot easier than teams have been able to do when playing us.

**ScottH** · 14 May 2007, 09:25 AM

Tackles 39 us, 55 saints.

Contested Possessions/Marks is the other big concern.

One contested Mark.
Name
Adam Schneider
Adam Goodes
Ryan O'Keefe
Ted Richards
Peter Everitt
Barry Hall

All the rest had 0.
Thats 6, Saints had 11.

Contested Possessions

Code:

Name		Con Pos
Jude Bolton	10
Nick Davis	9
Brett Kirk	8
Adam Goodes	7
Nick Malceski	7
Adam Schneider	6
Ryan O'Keefe	6
Leo Barry	4
Luke Ablett	4
Ben Mathews	3
Nic Fosdike	3
Barry Hall	3
Darren Jolly	3
Keiran Jack	3
Ted Richards	3
Amon Buchanan	3
Paul Bevan	3
Peter Everitt	2
Craig Bolton	2
Michael O	2
Jared Crouch	1
Jarred McVeigh	0

Thats 92, Saints 106

**Ludwig** · 14 May 2007, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by liz

I thought it was about as poor an effort tackling wise as I can remember seeing from the Swans. Completely with you.

The other major disappointment - and again uncharacteristic one - was that none of them looked interested in touching the ball at centre bounces. They just stood around and watched their opponents pick the ball up and run off with it. I know their attempts at clearances are often a bit scratchy and it sometimes takes several mauls and re-bounces before the ball breaks out, but at least piling bodies on the pill has got to be better than standing watching.

Agree completely!

So many Swans simply stopped running at their opponents just a metre or 2 away allowing them to easily kick or handball out of trouble, when laying a tackle was the obvious thing to do. MOL was particularly poor in this area. Often had his opponent corralled just to stop and let him off the hook.

Ablett seemed so concerned about stopping Harvey, which he did pretty well, that other Saints simply blew by him without Ablett laying a hand on them.

McVeigh played his usual touch footy. Nothing new there.

Perhaps Roos' idea about playing JB forward was to get some forward pressure, but it doesn't seem have worked. It didn't help that Fosdyke had his worst effort of the season

Kieran Jack hasn't had enough of the ball to evaluate his skills, but his tackling and run at the ball was just great. He showed that you don't have to actually make the tackle, but you can throw your opponent off by simply forcing the situation. The smallest fraction of a second can make all the difference in the world. Great tackle on Clarke, forcing a turnover. I'd keep him in the squad another week, as I think he can cover either Pierce or Krakouer. He's not hurting the team at the moment.

The Mcveigh situation is sad. Most of us would have been hopeful about him having a good 2007 based on a respectable effort in 2006 and a lot of hype about how much he had improved in the pre season. He is a good athlete and has shown he has the skills, but just needs to apply them more consistently. But as noted elsewhere, he just seems to have gone backwards this year. He doesn't look like a confident player. I would think that Roos has given him a lot of latitude because he knows sending him down might break his confidence completely, and who knows if and when he will get it back again. Roos is probably just a shocked a we are about how poorly he's performed this year. I disagree with many posters who think he was a bad draft pick and always a no hoper. For his age, he looked to have plenty of potential, but just hasn't developed according to plan. The Swans need to find several new midfielders this year and can't persist any longer with McVeigh. Should go down to 2s and see if the coaches can get him on track for next year.

Bevan, for all his endeavour, is not skilful enough to play senior footy and is just sucking up valuable game time for the likes Schmidt or Laidlaw. And as Liz has pointed out recently, there will be some hard decisions to be made at year end about who to keep and who to drop. If Bevan is retained next season, it either means that he already has a contract through 2008, or the Swans have limited potential in its current stock of young prospects.

Ben Mathews is one of my favourite players. Cannot remember him having a bad game. He's a good short kick off of both sides. On the contrary to most posters, Ben is actually a good decision maker. He tends to kill the ball a lot, since his knows that his skill level is such that getting a bounce up is usually the best option when the ball is in his hands. Benny is doing fine, it's just that the game is moving away from his strengths. Ben is just one of the least dangerous players in the league, and the Swans need to threaten the goal square.

My strategy for the rest of the season, concerning the midfield at least, is to play at 2 key prospects every week. At this point I would rotate Schmidt, Moore and Laidlaw into the senior team for the rest of the year, choosing at least 2 of the 3 each week. If that means dropping Benny or Crouch, then so be it. But we really need to aim to get at least 2 new midfielders into the senior side by the end of the season.

I like the look of the Kangas this year. Just relentless at the ball, kick the ball forward at all cost. With enough forward pressure, the goals will come. Compare this to the Swans, who look forward then kick the ball around until a clanger has the ball rocketing in the opposite direction. The Swans game plan has been unlocked, and a Kangas sort of game plan is required. Every team is flooding back on the Swans, exposing their slow forward ball movement. The Swans need to have a game plan that doesn't expose how badly Kennelly is missed. Even with the more than usual injuries, the Swans are still better off in that regard than most squads in the AFL. Just look at the Crows and the Saints to see just how lucky we are with injuries.

Yes, the Swans are simply not playing well, but Roos and the leadership group need to be proactive and not sit around a wait for good things to happen in the fullness of time. The senior players simply think that karma alone will bring a repeat of 2005. The Swans are a bit too nostalgic for my liking at the moment. I didn't agree with Walls' assessment of the Swans in early 2005, but the Swans really were boring on Saturday. Not a pleasant game to watch. Compare that to the WB-Melbourne game yesterday. Great effort by both sides. Great game to watch.

It's new year, and a new karma, and we better get on to it fast.

***NMWBloods*** · 14 May 2007, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Ludwig

My strategy for the rest of the season, concerning the midfield at least, is to play at 2 key prospects every week. At this point I would rotate Schmidt, Moore and Laidlaw into the senior team for the rest of the year, choosing at least 2 of the 3 each week. If that means dropping Benny or Crouch, then so be it. But we really need to aim to get at least 2 new midfielders into the senior side by the end of the season.

Yes - this is exactly what I've been saying!!

(BTW:

because I agree,

because I doubt it will happen!).

**giant** · 14 May 2007, 10:13 AM

Two weeks in a row we've played against teams hungrier & more committed than us - that doesn't often happen with the Swans. If we bring up the hattrick we can all really start to worry because that's certainly been one of the foundations of the Swans' success in the Roos years.

**ScottH** · 14 May 2007, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by giant

Two weeks in a row we've played against teams hungrier & more committed than us - that doesn't often happen with the Swans. If we bring up the hattrick we can all really start to worry because that's certainly been one of the foundations of the Swans' success in the Roos years.

Yes we are being beaten at our own game. The last 2 weeks have shown that.

Our clearances are generally scrappy and rushed, where as the Roos and Saints were able to clear it more effectively. This is all due to the pressure/tackling applied in the ruck contests, which we seem to be lacking in, or the other teams are far more ferocious at it, than we are.

**Bob Neil** · 14 May 2007, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by ScottH

Yes we are being beaten at our own game. The last 2 weeks have shown that.

Our clearances are generally scrappy and rushed, where as the Roos and Saints were able to clear it more effectively. This is all due to the pressure/tackling applied in the ruck contests, which we seem to be lacking in, or the other teams are far more ferocious at it, than we are.

Has anyone mentioned the Ross Lyon factor in any post mortom threads?

**ScottH** · 14 May 2007, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Bob Neil

Has anyone mentioned the Ross Lyon factor in any post mortom threads?

Yep, a few times I think.

The real concerns...

The real concerns...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment